Yeah, sounds like that's about right. Seabs, I would imagine the funding from NHBLI is on a rolling basis and they were able to get additional funds last year. The discrepancy between Sun saying they had none and now Harmon saying they're waiting for more is probably due to the fact that Sun is being let go (due to of all things, lack of funding) and probably isn't getting updated as consistently.

I wonder who funded them last year in addition to the NHBLI or if the need for more funds is due to a need for increased spending to continue research. Because they're actually receiving more funds from the NHBLI this year than last.

chuckstonstew, getting back to possibly starting a petition or movement to get them funding would it be possible to ask Dr. Harmon how much they're looking to get? That way if we move ahead with our idea we'd have a ballpark estimate for what we should seek.

Looking at the original paper they say that their research was partially (key word here) funded by the NIH grant and the Maryland Stem Cell Research Fund Postdoctoral Fellowship and the Maryland Stem Cell Research Fund.

They're likely getting all three of these sources again (and definitely the NIH one based on their website) but perhaps the other funders are not involved or balking at involvement. But man, I can't for the life of me figure out why that would be...maybe they just need more sources than last year in general.

Alright everyone - updates, updates, updates!

I've been in contact with Dr. Harmon. I proposed our idea of a movement/petition to help raise awareness, support and demand for the hydrogel. He is fond of the idea and thinks that 'our group could definitely help out'. He is discussing this with his collaborators and getting back to me next week!

Also, and possibly more importantly, he said their team wants to cover regenerative hydrogels (plural), not just one exact type. Specifically, he mentioned another gel that may have advantages over the dextran hydrogel. He said he thinks the gel has similar regenerative potential, but it also is antibacterial, very easy to apply, and it self adheres. The dextran hydrogel doesn't self adhere to it's somewhat difficult to use. He went on to say that they are getting ready to put in a proposal to do 'very serious testing of the new gel."

Great idea to email Dr. Harmon, he has provided a wealth of information. Things are looking good!

I'll let everyone know when he gets back to me regarding the movement! Start formulating ideas.

~ Progress!

Wow, that's great, good job chuck Harmon seems like a great guy, too.

Alright everyone - updates, updates, updates!

 

I've been in contact with Dr. Harmon. I proposed our idea of a movement/petition to help raise awareness, support and demand for the hydrogel. He is fond of the idea and thinks that 'our group could definitely help out'. He is discussing this with his collaborators and getting back to me next week!

 

Also, and possibly more importantly, he said their team wants to cover regenerative hydrogels (plural), not just one exact type. Specifically, he mentioned another gel that may have advantages over the dextran hydrogel. He said he thinks the gel has similar regenerative potential, but it also is antibacterial, very easy to apply, and it self adheres. The dextran hydrogel doesn't self adhere to it's somewhat difficult to use. He went on to say that they are getting ready to put in a proposal to do 'very serious testing of the new gel."

 

Great idea to email Dr. Harmon, he has provided a wealth of information. Things are looking good!

 

I'll let everyone know when he gets back to me regarding the movement! Start formulating ideas.

 

~ Progress!

 

If that new gel digested and reepithilized mammal tissue faster or as fast as the dextran then I'd be for it, but if not I just want the dextran hydrogel.

Excellent! Glad he was so forthcoming and interested in our involvement. Like seabs said, I do hope that whatever gels they're working on give the same regenerative results.

Can't wait to hear what he has to say!

OK - this makes some more sense!!

That they might not have persued this dextran hydrogel as they think that another gel could be even more effective - or they want to add other properties to the gel - like being anti-bacterial - easy to apply - and self-adhering - as mentioned!!

I guess this could be the big answer to my question - ie. why the research was not contonued right away

I'm still hopeful too that other institutions have seen this research and that it might spark lots more research in this area

I followed the progress of the spray-on-skin from around to 2008 and it's cool to see it now on the market - although it doesn't lead to scar-free healing - just greatly improved healing with reduced scaring after burns - it is actually here - and was promoted by Dr Fiona Woods - who is great pioneer in trying to find ways to heal tissue after burns

what interests me is the word 'self-adhere' - when I first heard about hydrogels I thought they would have the consistancy of hair gel - all gloopy - but from what I gather hydrogels can actually be anything from runny like hair-gel - to being like set jelly - to being quite tough, like rubber - so I'm thinking they are trying to create a gel that as well as promoting regeneration actually sits well on the removed skin - and sticks to it

It's so great that these scientists have written back - and seem quite friendly - it really is nice of them to give these updates

Lets hope their replys have even more good news!

OK - this makes some more sense!!

 

That they might not have persued this dextran hydrogel as they think that another gel could be even more effective - or they want to add other properties to the gel - like being anti-bacterial - easy to apply - and self-adhering - as mentioned!!

 

I guess this could be the big answer to my question - ie. why the research was not contonued right away

 

I'm still hopeful too that other institutions have seen this research and that it might spark lots more research in this area

 

I followed the progress of the spray-on-skin from around to 2008 and it's cool to see it now on the market - although it doesn't lead to scar-free healing - just greatly improved healing with reduced scaring after burns - it is actually here - and was promoted by Dr Fiona Woods - who is great pioneer in trying to find ways to heal tissue after burns

 

what interests me is the word 'self-adhere' - when I first heard about hydrogels I thought they would have the consistancy of hair gel - all gloopy - but from what I gather hydrogels can actually be anything from runny like hair-gel - to being like set jelly - to being quite tough, like rubber - so I'm thinking they are trying to create a gel that as well as promoting regeneration actually sits well on the removed skin - and sticks to it

 

It's so great that these scientists have written back - and seem quite friendly - it really is nice of them to give these updates

 

Lets hope their replys have even more good news!

 

I've been thinking here. Would adding to the hydrogel with antibacterials and other stuff, slightly overload it for the neutrophils, giving them a little bit more to digest beyond the hydrogel, which may slightly delay reepithialization? Though I don't think it would be much (Also, on the other hand, I should acknowledge though, it may even make it more effective for all we know by killing microbes for the neutrophils so the neutophils could focus on the hydrogel?).

Also btw in the study there was nothing noted in terms of infection there were no deaths in the scaffold control, or the hydrogel, but there was a 60% survival rate in the dressing alone section though. So you can see it actually beat your standard dressing. IMO I reckon the only thing I can currently see you adding something antibiotic and self adhereing to in a protocol is to very big emergency burns, were usually there is a big risk of infection anyway and were, because it is so big in area and there is a survival emergency, it would be harder for the hydrogel to fix itself fast for the digestion. With regards to a treatment protocol for my my scars, as there is no survival threat, I'd take the hydrogel that was used in the experiment, in a couple of revisions, I'd be fairly confident dressings would keep the hydrogel in place for the 7days it would take to digest. I can see what he means by 'hydrogels,' for emergency big burns and emergency injuries you may need something to self adhere more than you would for "revision" injuries, maybe...

good finds on the funding and updates for them still waiting on the more funding. Thanks for the new info regarding a possible new hydrogel they're working on as well. It's nice to know this team is legit provided that they haven't t given up, and are still working on regenerative medicine.

well - this explains a lot:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institute_basic_biomedical_sciences/news_events/articles_and_stories/translation_bench_bedside/201207_commercialization.html

It seems that John Hopkins has a history of research for research's sake!

Also - that Geraht wants to scale up her research to larger animals [which is real good - cause as I understand the leap from a drug/device working in a mouse to working in a larger animal is bigger than the leap between large animals and humans - so if these experiments went ahead then we'd know if the hydrogel is likely to work on humans]

It seems that Geraht needs lots of money for these tests though - and that this is, at the moement, holding her back!

I wonder how much they need to raise? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

It still shocks me that they have found it hard to raise these funds by now - but I guess many institutions/foundations might only give grants only once or twice a year - and the article also says that they are trying to find funding from private companies - which I think is good - as private companies will want things to move as fast as possible

so I guess, in summary - the hydrogels are still seen as having great potential - and they intend to carry out the next stage - ie. research on larger animals - but they are waiting for the funds to do so - which hopefully they will get sooner rather than later!!

Great article, thanks mars123.

I find this quote to be such an oxymoron:

œThe purely academic way of thinking was, ˜I™m putting my science in the public domain for the sake of knowledge and the public good."

I mean, how can you say your doing something for the public good if you're not taking the research and turning it into applied science so that the public can use and benefit from it? Glad to see that Johns Hopkins has had a turnabout in terms of how they view the research they do. Hopefully, Gerecht didn't respond to our emails because she's busy at meetings with potential investors.

Hey,

I really dont understand why you all arent jumping on Dr Deepak Srivastava's research. He turned SCAR FIBROBLASTS back into beating HEART MUSCLES, through the use of an injection of viruses that turned the scarring gene off - even in older scars.

They said the potential benefits is that it could one day be used to help other scarring, including body scars.

I cant help but think it deserves a lot more attention and funding than this boring hydrogel. I mean it wouldnt require excisions or any real surgical intervention, it would simply involve injections that turn genes off that are keeping scars the way that they are, then guiding them into something we want them to be - NORMAL SKIN

ps. i know i post like a troll. its the only way i can get your guys attention. ive been following this post for soooo long and i really dont see that the fuss is about with the hydrogel. i was hoping seabs ***the god of this topic with his knowledge** would be broadening himself out and using his expertise to look for other solutions....

@midnightmist

No worries, your opinion is completely valid. Honestly, it would be 100% preferable if a treatment came along that could reverse scar tissue into normal skin (with skin appendages) by simply injecting something into the site of the scar. That being said I read some interviews with Deepak and while the results are quite promising (especially for heart attack sufferers) some scar remains:

http://www.pbs.org/n...tudy_04-18.html

So unless they can improve upon that (and I expect some improvement but not necessarily no scar), I'd much rather throw my support behind something that has shown complete skin regeneration in mice already. It would be a slight inconvenience to get an excision and have to walk around with the dressing for a while but who really cares if I'm getting brand new normal skin afterwards.

I see your point I thought I read elsewhere that the scars kept improving, but I've read so much that I'm probably imagining it out of sheer hope.

oh god I wish something would come out. I'm suffering more severe scarring than most (burn scars) and the disfigurement has prevented so many aspects of my life. I research time and time again for a cure.

I even bought my own fractional co2 laser to help clear up the damage, but the improvement has been minimal.

I will stay involved in this tread and would be happy to donate where needed...

well - this explains a lot:

 

http://www.hopkinsme...ialization.html

 

It seems that John Hopkins has a history of research for research's sake!

 

Also - that Geraht wants to scale up her research to larger animals [which is real good - cause as I understand the leap from a drug/device working in a mouse to working in a larger animal is bigger than the leap between large animals and humans - so if these experiments went ahead then we'd know if the hydrogel is likely to work on humans]

 

It seems that Geraht needs lots of money for these tests though - and that this is, at the moement, holding her back!

 

 

I wonder how much they need to raise? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

 

It still shocks me that they have found it hard to raise these funds by now - but I guess many institutions/foundations might only give grants only once or twice a year - and the article also says that they are trying to find funding from private companies - which I think is good - as private companies will want things to move as fast as possible

 

so I guess, in summary - the hydrogels are still seen as having great potential - and they intend to carry out the next stage - ie. research on larger animals - but they are waiting for the funds to do so - which hopefully they will get sooner rather than later!!

 

Excellent find! New hope for the hydrogel, this is the first time we've heard that hydrogel and tissue regeneration are still priorities of Gerecht since the paper was released so long ago.

well - this explains a lot:

 

http://www.hopkinsme...ialization.html

 

It seems that John Hopkins has a history of research for research's sake!

 

Sharon Gerecht is one example. An assistant professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering, Gerecht has developed a special biological material called hydrogel that could help severely burned patients grow healthy new skin. She has shown that hydrogel stimulates the growth of tiny blood vessels in wounded tissue that help nourish newly growing skin. She™s also shown that hydrogel helps mice regenerate new skin and hair in burned regions, research she™s conducted with John Harmon, a surgeon at the Johns Hopkins Bayview Burn Center, and Professor of Pathology Charles Steenbergen.

 

œI want to move the research forward, to do preclinical testing, says Gerecht. But that next step”pre-clinical studies in large animals”will require substantial funding. To garner that funding, Gerecht is applying for federal grants. She is also seeking potential sponsors in another quarter: industry.

Hey this is great to hear!

BTW Johns Hopkins Unversity is very well known as No.1 RESEARCH UNIVERSITY in the US, it stands above all of the most famous Ivy League universities like Harvard, MIT, Cornell, Yale, Stanford, etc in the field of research activities.

http://gazette.jhu.e...-for-32nd-year/

So I hope that their reputation means their staff don't tend to make scams like Renovo.

And we shouldn't be concerned about the funding for this project, I'm just concerned if it will work on human skin, if it really works on human skin then it will be on the market sooner or later, it will get funding and it will be approved by FDА, I'm not worried about that too much.

This is interesting too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Hopkins_University_School_of_Medicine

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (JHUSOM), located in Baltimore, Maryland, U.S., is the academic medical teaching and research arm of Johns Hopkins University. Hopkins has consistently been the nation's number one medical school in the amount of competitive research grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health. Its major teaching hospital, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, has been ranked as the best hospital in the United States every year since 1992 by U.S. News and World Report.[3]

Yeah - it definately explains why they didn't go straight to further trials - it seems it was not in their acedemic culture to do such things!

I agree golfpanther - that this line œThe purely academic way of thinking was, ˜I™m putting my science in the public domain for the sake of knowledge and the public good."

...is a little bit strange to us on teh outside

with their article saying that they lost out on millions of pounds of profit by doing that - so on one level you can admire them as it's very high-minded acedmically - and saying they are all about discovery and knowledge for knowledge's sake - but on another level you'd think they'd want to put their world-class researchers on the trial of delivering actual end-of-the-line drugs and cures themselves - given the real impact that a drug that works has

anyhow - it seems they are turning about their thinking - and how great is it that they just now put out an article basically answering what we've all been asking!!

anyhow - number 1 - it seems that John Hopkins still belives in the product [they aren't giving these potential royalties away lol - a good sign maybe?]

And 2 - they are going to do next level large animal trials [ 🙂 - it's just going to take a little longer than we all hoped - but - those trial results won't take that long once the trial is started - ie. its not a drug that they need to check the progress of 1 year later - and yes - the trials are coming!!]

Probably, like a lot of you on here the reason I'm hopeful about hydrogel is it *seems* to turn scarring off - and has done something that no other product has done

all the other hyped scar treatments always had results like '20% less scarring after 6 months use etc etc' or 'significantly reduced scaring etc' - whereas scientists use that magic word when taking about this hydrogel ie 'scarfree'

wham - no scarring

btw - it's just nice to hear that other people have the same thing on their mind too! hope you are all having a good week

Hey,

 

I really dont understand why you all arent jumping on Dr Deepak Srivastava's research. He turned SCAR FIBROBLASTS back into beating HEART MUSCLES, through the use of an injection of viruses that turned the scarring gene off - even in older scars.

 

They said the potential benefits is that it could one day be used to help other scarring, including body scars.

 

I cant help but think it deserves a lot more attention and funding than this boring hydrogel. I mean it wouldnt require excisions or any real surgical intervention, it would simply involve injections that turn genes off that are keeping scars the way that they are, then guiding them into something we want them to be - NORMAL SKIN

 

 

ps. i know i post like a troll. its the only way i can get your guys attention. ive been following this post for soooo long and i really dont see that the fuss is about with the hydrogel. i was hoping seabs ***the god of this topic with his knowledge** would be broadening himself out and using his expertise to look for other solutions....

 

I've never once played the god of any topic. Most of what I say is cited. All I do is have my say, and when I have my say I try to keep it to the facts and a logical frame work. Looking for other solutions available? Where are they? The only one I can see currently is the rapidly degraded hydrogel, which reepithilizes before a scar response can happen, which regenerates hair follicles and sebacous glands (appendages do not regenerate in scar). this could be available in 2.5 year. Can you see the clear logical framework?

I believe it will be approved by FDA in less than 2.5 years because of this act:

http://www.polymersolutions.com/blog/fda-user-fee-bill-becomes-law/

This bill provides for the opportunity to accelerate the introduction of innovative medical devices without compromise to patient safety,

I believe it will be approved by FDA in less than 2.5 years because of this act:

http://www.polymerso...ll-becomes-law/

 

œThis bill provides for the opportunity to accelerate the introduction of innovative medical devices without compromise to patient safety,

 

Vlad, also, imo, even if that legislation was not so, there is a reasonable precedent of funded devices being approved in 2.5 years and you also have the fact that it has been stated they claim this could be approved in 3 years of device testing.

However using the cite you provided, I now think it is even more reasonable to expect that this should take even less time to be aproved.

Regarding midnightmist . my last comment. You say a subject is boring. IMO Boring is something that is so long and you lose your concentration. There is nothing to long about understanding that a hydrogel rapidly digests. Also tbh even if it was boring from your pov, imo if you are affected by scarring, you shouldn't care if the thread or a subject is boring in the context of scar free healing, as long as it plays a part in getting information out and discussed that will end your suffering quicker who gives a....

2.5 years still seems too long, imo.

I mean, literally, all they have to do is make an excision in a pig and cover it with hydrogel.

If this works - make an excision in a human and cover it with hydrogel.

If this works - voila.

I know it's a little more complicated, but not complicated enough to take 3 years to show if it works or not. That's ridiculous.

I wonder if they'd be interested in gaining approval in another country while the US FDA is taking their sweet time.

I've heard of tons of device manufacturers that do this and have their device approved in Europe several years before it gets approved in the US.

I actually read today that devices usually get approved 2 years faster in Europe than the US.

Again, if it clearly works (which definitely wouldn't take years to determine), it needs to be brought to the people somehow ASAP - maybe if the researchers at Johns Hopkins see this, they'll pursue a quick approval overseas while waiting for US approval.

Maybe our movement can have an impact on this.

Medical Treatment, Out of Reach

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/business/10device.html?pagewanted=all

FDA rips Europe's system for medical device reviews

http://www.startribune.com/business/148313295.html?refer=y

FDA challenges medical device approval comparisons with Europe

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/other/144823-fda-challenges-medical-device-approval-comparisons-with-europe

One thing I don't understand: how it is possible that those people from InVivo Therapeutics said that their hydrogel for acute spinal cord injuries could be on the market until the end of 2013, so that means they need only 1.5 years for testing before FDA approval? Especially if we know that the spinal cord is far more sensitive organ than the skin because scars on the skin are not as devastating as the scars of the spinal cord.

Maybe Gerecht was figuring in all of the funding delays when she gave the initial 2-3 year estimation.

And @Vlad, that last article you posted there regarding EU vs US approval also states that Europe's process is 2 years quicker.

Imagine 2 years quicker than the 2.5-3 years....... Now that's what I'm talking about.

And it only takes 6-9 months to earn approval for a medical device in India...

http://www.emergogroup.com/services/india/india-medical-device-registration